Wednesday, November 09, 2005

Possibly OT Wednesday Forecast

I haven't a clue where Dave lives, though I suspect Hamstead (I don't know why), but Nick Cohen has mentioned Islington more than once. Assuming that columnists regard the truth as just as malleable as estate agents, that means somewhere north and perhaps east a bit of the Square Mile. Whatever, the odds should be good that his MP is listed here: Full list of Labour rebels. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) and Emily Thornberry (Islington South & Finsbury) being the most likely candidates, but Diane Abbott (Hackney North & Stoke Newington) and Frank Dobson (Holborn & St Pancras) are there too, which pretty much covers the bruschetta eating latitudes.

Can we expect a "Garn! my elected representative is an enemy of freedom!" This *is* Blair's first defeat -- so it is a real political story. It's over the response to terrorism which both our boys have covered extensively, and may be the issue which defines this parliamentary term and Blair's legacy. And as much as any of us are responsible for our MPs being in their seats, Nick is pretty much bound to have put his cross against one of those rebel's names back in May.

In other news, Galloway bunked off again. Right, prison's too good for him.

Oh definitely Hampstead, he's always banging on about it. That's why it was so amusing that him and Nicky like to rant about Hampstead and Islington dinner parties, and yet they're easily the two who like to slip it into their columns they live there the most times.

Glenda Jackson voted against, so Dave can rant on too.

The question has to be this: if Blair is so convinced today's vote has made the country at a markedly higher risk of terrorist attack, why doesn't he force it through with a confidence vote?

Anon,having read Nick's Standard column, he does seem more ambivalent. Like everyone else though, he doesn't say why 90 days without trail will make us safer than 14 would have. I suppose his final sentence is classic bet-hedging, but, again, I can't see how events can prove him (us) wrong. If the police can't find evidence for a trial within the new 28 day limit, I really can't see why they'd be able to after 90. So, even if they did catch and release a suspect who went on to commit an atrocity (which I admit is possible, if somewhat unlikely), I've yet to be convinced that the same suspect wouldn't have done this after however long he was in custody.

And a pedantic point, I disagree with that whole passage. I don't believe that the IRA, or Baader-Meinhof, or the American Revolutionaries thought in terms of a moral upper limit of murders. I also disagree with "the liberties of this country are what make this country worth defending". This country is worth defending because I don't want to die. The liberties are worth defending on their own merits. I hope never to confuse the two.

dave - he clarifies a bit in the latest Standard column, on the blog (it's written in the conditional tense, so presumably filed before the defeat). He's apparently opposed to the terrorism bill, but also opposed to the idea of it not becoming law.